Author
Topic: Posting for updates - please don't! (Read 10247 times)

I'm posting this merely as a suggestion - not as telling anyone what to do.

But is it possible to compromise the two views? If you want to post for updates, maybe just make an actual addition to the thread as well. I've seen some people do this - they post an actual comment about the issue/thread and then add that they're also posting for updates. It seems like that's a nice (and polite) way to do it - you get what you're after, but you're also not just adding to the "noise" in the thread; you're making a contribution.

Doing it that way would make everyone happy, I'd think. You get your notifications, the OP sees that there's real interest (and, to be honest, I think this shows even more interest, because you're actually posting a question or comment about what they've written), and the people who don't like coming in to see just "posting for updates!" aren't annoyed. Win-win for everyone.

Its also possible to take mental note of how many replies there are in a thread. If I am following a thread and I notice "ok its at 18 responses, 2 pages" than then see the "new" button I look, oh, its still at 2 pages, and the latest post wasn't the OP. But here's a new topic that looks interesting. I'll read the new thread first. Later I might see "wow, that other thread is up to 33 responses, 3 pages" and check out where the conversation has gone.

I've been doing that with the stolen turkey dinner thread - lately I only check it every 10 or so posts... unless I see grammarnerd posts, then I'd check it right away. If requests for updates bug you, once you see that's where a thread is going, just don't check it as often. If new posts are slow, its probably a request, if they suddenly spike, its probably due to an update.

Huge POD to this. No way do I want any more emails hitting my inbox, especially on a very active thread. Now, if there were a way to select certain threads that could appear in a specific "unread" list even though you hadn't posted to them, that would be cool.

To the bolded: That's what the notify feature is for. Seriously. As I just stated, you don't need to get e-mails about it. You can turn that feature off in your notifications.

Where does the notification go, if not to your email?

To my notifications. If you read my first post, I explain how to get there.

I'm posting this merely as a suggestion - not as telling anyone what to do.

But is it possible to compromise the two views? If you want to post for updates, maybe just make an actual addition to the thread as well. I've seen some people do this - they post an actual comment about the issue/thread and then add that they're also posting for updates. It seems like that's a nice (and polite) way to do it - you get what you're after, but you're also not just adding to the "noise" in the thread; you're making a contribution.

Doing it that way would make everyone happy, I'd think. You get your notifications, the OP sees that there's real interest (and, to be honest, I think this shows even more interest, because you're actually posting a question or comment about what they've written), and the people who don't like coming in to see just "posting for updates!" aren't annoyed. Win-win for everyone.

Now, I don't mind when I see posts like that, Dotty, because they're not just posting for updates. They're adding to the thread. It's the posts (and sometimes, post after post after post) that are literally just 'posting for updates'.

Now, I don't mind when I see posts like that, Dotty, because they're not just posting for updates. They're adding to the thread. It's the posts (and sometimes, post after post after post) that are literally just 'posting for updates'.

And I think it's a fair compromise to both sides. That seems like a way for both sides of the issue to get what they want/need in the most polite way (which is not a bad thing for an etiquette site! )

Looks like RainhaDoTexugo proposed the same thing in the other thread. I'd forgotten about that.

Quote

I'm really not a huge fan of posting for updates, it just doesn't seem to fit right here at ehell, in my opinion. Posting for updates and making an attempt to add something to the conversation, even if it's just "Mostly just posting for updates. Good luck with your MIL, OP!" or something simple doesn't bother me so much, and I know I've done it a few times. It acknowledges that the OP exists and is possibly trying to solve a problem, whereas just "posting for updates" seems, to me, to be dismissing the OP in a way. When I'm just posting for updates, I try to disguise it

WillyNilly, that method works if you're online and watching the thread. But not really as well if you've been away from the computer for a while.

Which why there are other methods.

My ways work well for me. I have no interest in adapting my methods to methods that work well for others. If my way doesn't work for someone else they can use whatever method best serves them (notifications or whatever). That's the point. Morrigan is asking all of us to adapt our usage of this site to the method that best serves Morrigan. I will not do that, and I'm not impressed with even being asked to do so. I will continue to utilize the usage methods that best serve me. Posting for updates is allowed, and therefore a perfectly valid use of this site.

Huge POD to this. No way do I want any more emails hitting my inbox, especially on a very active thread. Now, if there were a way to select certain threads that could appear in a specific "unread" list even though you hadn't posted to them, that would be cool.

To the bolded: That's what the notify feature is for. Seriously. As I just stated, you don't need to get e-mails about it. You can turn that feature off in your notifications.

Where does the notification go, if not to your email?

To my notifications. If you read my first post, I explain how to get there.

Ah, okay. That's not something I'd do on a regular basis. Generally if I *really* want to follow a thread, I'll post something other than "posting for updates". I might say "Good luck, OP, let us know how it turns out!" or "I'm curious to see how X responds, please update us."

Logged

"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

(Editing to say "then" instead of "though" - it fit better when I reread it)

Well the thing is, I've never actully posted a "posting for updates" myself, I merely appreciate the process, so I'm not sure how I can participate in the compromise, except I guess to say, yes I agre its more enjoyable when the request comes with a bit more to read on the overall topic.

(Editing to say "then" instead of "though" - it fit better when I reread it)

Well the thing is, I've never actully posted a "posting for updates" myself, I merely appreciate the process, so I'm not sure how I can participate in the compromise, except I guess to say, yes I agre its more enjoyable when the request comes with a bit more to read on the overall topic.

So you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative? If you don't do it, then how does my suggestion even apply to you?

Looks like Rain proposed the same thing in the other thread. I'd forgotten about that.

Quote

I'm really not a huge fan of posting for updates, it just doesn't seem to fit right here at ehell, in my opinion. Posting for updates and making an attempt to add something to the conversation, even if it's just "Mostly just posting for updates. Good luck with your MIL, OP!" or something simple doesn't bother me so much, and I know I've done it a few times. It acknowledges that the OP exists and is possibly trying to solve a problem, whereas just "posting for updates" seems, to me, to be dismissing the OP in a way. When I'm just posting for updates, I try to disguise it

Who is Rain?

Nevermind, I'm assuming you were referring to RainhaDoTexugo?Not telling anyone how to post but if you are going to quote from a poster it would probably be helpful to actually quote them so everyone would know who the original quote was from, instead of including just the quote and a nickname. Plus that would provide a link back to the original thread for context.